memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Khan Noonien Singh
FA status FA nomination (10 May - 24 May 2004, Success) Self-nomination. One of the most detailed character articles I've done so far. -- Dan Carlson 20:05, 10 May 2004 (CEST) :Archived, originally stated as a "successful nomination" by User:MinutiaeMan on 15:17, May 24, 2004. Not really sure how that worked out, but it seems to have been renominated. --Alan del Beccio 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) FA removal (17 Jan - 26 Jan 2006, Success) This article is currently rewritten in its entirety. As far as I am concerned when a article is rewritten it loses automatically its featured status. If a article like this undergoes a major rewrite it needs to be checked again if it is up to MA standards, one could argue that if a featured article needs a major rewrite is was not ready to be featured et al, but that is debatable. Because an article was featured, does not mean the rewrite can stay featured also. -- Q 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC) :Comment. Actually, AureliusKirk had the exact same thoughts as you concerning the article's featured status. I told him he didn't need to nominate it here automatically and that someone else would if they thought the quality was lower because of his work. As far as I'm concerned, that should be the case; if the changes mean it no longer qualifies, take it off, otherwise it should be left alone. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to judge it one way or another. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ::reply. It is not really a matter of better or worse quality. When the initial feature status was given it was done so at the account of the then present article structure and wording. When a major rewrite is done this all changes and it should again go through the peerreview/nomination proces. At least as far as I am concerned. -- Q 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) :Support - It was my intention to nominate this article for Featured removal, you guys just beat me to it. It is substantially different. Even if everyone thought the latest version was clear improvement, I'd still nominate it based on the radical change. If I thought removing the featured tag was within my "rights" I would have done so, but I thought this was the proper forum. --Aurelius Kirk 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ::reply. It is within you "rights" so to speak. Everyone can place an article on the removal list if they find it does no longer qualify as . Removing the featured status without letting it go through the removal proces is not done. -- Q 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) FA nomination (13 Sept - 01 Oct 2006, Success) Well thought out, it has that "dramatic flair" that some of the better written articles have, it's detailed and informative with pictures and some great quotes to back it up. - AJ Halliwell 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :Support. Extremely well written and accurate, great photos and quotes. This should definitely be a Featured Article. --''Captain MAJ'' ''=/\=''| 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. The monkeys told me to do it. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC) *'Support' - Make it so, a great read, not too long, great pictures. - Enzo Aquarius 23:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Very well written, and the Legacy section ties all of the history together quite nicely. -- Jaz talk 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Well-written, thoroughly detailed, and most importantly - accurate. Just what makes a featured article. -- Krevaner 23:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC) The name "Singh" I wonder that no one's pointed out that "Singh" is the traditional shared name of almost all Sikh men (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh#Sikh_Names). -- 14:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Good call. In the non-canon Eugenic Wars books, Khan is explicitly identified as a Sikh. He also speaks Punjabi, it appears. ::Actually, he's identified as a Sikh in . Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars novels just explain niggling little details like why Khan, a Sikh, is wandering around with short hair, and all clean-shaven. IanWatson 22:33, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::I believe calls him a Sikh, but he does not wear any of the traditional Sikh ojbects (the turban, bracelet, and dagger). Sikhism is basically an egalitarian belief system not compatible with being an elitist megalomaniac superhuman, .--GreatBear 06:53, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*In Marla McGivers' painting of Khan, he is wearing a turban. Presumably that is from contemporary photos of him. :*I suspect the Botany Bay launched with little time for niceties. So he may not have had an opportunity to take things with him like a turban or dagger. :*The episode does not definitively identify him as a "Sikh". Marla McGivers says upon seeing Khan that he is "probably a Sikh", based only on his appearance. Since a Sikh is - of course - a religious rather than ethnic or national affiliation, I think that shows wishful thinking on her part. Especially as she then gushes about what wonderful warriors they were, and wouldn't it be wonderful if he was one, and my is it getting hot in here? At least, if you read between the lines :) :*As to the name "Singh", it dates back to at least the 8th Century; Sikhism did not exist until the late 16th to early 17th Centuries. :*One of the Sikh articles of faith is to have uncut hair. Khan had long, but not uncut, hair and no beard. However, not all Sikhs today wear turbans or grow long hair, so that's just a data point. :*Bottom line: we have no real proof he is - or is not - a Sikh. Aholland 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :::All good points. Does this amount to an objection to the line "Khan's background was suspected to be Sikh"? or should it be limited to include "Indian"? --Aurelius Kirk 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ::::No objection. It was suspected by McGivers, even if on the flimsiest of evidence. So it is a true statement without definitively saying he was a Sikh. I think it straddles the point nicely. Aholland 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ::*Most Sikhs are Punjabis and Jatts at that. Jatt is considered the 'warrior race' of Punjabis and was even classified as such by the British during their rule in India. Considering Sikhism is a peaceful religion, it might me prudent to invoke the ethnic background (Jatt) which prides itself on its martial culture rather than the religious background. Major rewrite I noticed a bunch of little errors and deviation from canon. Fixing them was quickly creating an article that didn't read very well, so I ended up with a top-down rehab. I meant no disrespect to the previous contributors, their work was the foundation for my re-write. It was just easier for me to approach it this way, and it think it's an over-all improvement. All information is based on his appearances in and . I refer to his Sikh "background" rather than implying he embraced the Sikh culture. I don't think we can canonically establish McGivers was the wife he referred to in TWOK, so I just use his references to "my beloved wife" and "her", as he said. There were a number of factual errors, and errors resulting from many edits over time. I'll nominate this for Featured Article removal, after a little time has passed and nobody thinks my version deserves a total revert. --Aurelius Kirk 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Quotes in TWOK section The indented and italicized quotes: why are they here? I haven't seen anything like them on any other page. They are good quotes, but I don't think they belong where they are, in between text. If anything they belong in a quotes section. Any thoughts? Vash The Stampede 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :Personally, I think that if they add to the article/character, they are alright. Indented and italicized quotes are common in episode summaries, especially for log entries (in my summary, I placed 'Engage!' at the bottom). - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :Either that (move to quotes section), or we should find another way to format "inline quotes" (maybe even using a template if those are here to stay. Indented-and-italicized is already used for background info, it might be confusing to have other information formatted as such. -- Cid Highwind 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Year of Botany Bay Launch This is a very good article. I noticed, though, the launch of the Botany Bay was firmly stated at 1996. It could have been 1996, but all we know is that Khan's reign over a quarter of Earth ended in 1996. Whether it ended all at once or was whittled away over time is not known. So the launch could have been 1996 or could have been later. I suggest it be amended to "sometime during or after 1996", since he couldn't have left pre-1996. Aholland 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :I know there's some ambiquity on this issue, and I did my best to address it when I took that issue on. The paragraph starts with Khan escaping the wars in 1996, but the exact date of launch was left up in the air. My hope was to suggest what the episode implied, but didn't nail down. As it stands, I don't think Botany Bay's launch is firmly stated. But since a second pair of eyes feels differently, I'll scan through "Space Seed" to reconstruct my reasoning and try again. --Aurelius Kirk 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ::For clarity, when I said that 1996 was "firmly stated", I meant in the article, not the episode. The line is "Khan escaped the wars and their consequences in 1996, along with 84 followers who swore to live and die at his command." I may have overread the text to imply that the Botany Bay launched that year. But even if not, the escape - in whatever form - may or may not have been in 1996. We don't know and that's my only point. I would restate it as "Khan escaped the wars and their consequences sometime after late 1996, along with 84 followers who swore to live and die at his command." (But it is a minor flaw in an otherwise brilliant article.) Aholland 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :::Wow, after a second look, I'm not sure what the ambiguity is anymore! In TWOK, Khan says "...Never told you how the Enterprise picked up the Botany Bay, lost in space from the year 1996..." That pretty much puts the BB on it's way in 1996. If you have something that cancels this, remind me. --Aurelius Kirk 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ::::Wow, indeed. My apologies - no change is needed. (You might even consider highlighting the point!) My initial view that the article was well done has proven more correct than my own faulty memory. Aholland 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :::::No need to apologize, now we have that fact nailed down! You got me looking at the article again, and I've made little fixes throughout. The Botany Bay launch paragraph is slightly modified to reflect the TWOK quote, and I dropped the sentence regarding "Singh" as an indicator of Sikh-dom (based on your notes above). --Aurelius Kirk 19:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Jatt?? Someone just added to the article that "Khan's ethnic background was Jatt (most likely Sikh) from the northern region of India." Unless someone has something from a valid resource to back this up, it should be reverted to nothing more than speculation as to Sikh and nothing as to Jatt. Aholland 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :On second thought, I'll change it back and if someone has something to validate the introduction of Jatt please note it back here. Aholland 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) ::In Lt. Marla McGivers's professional opinion, Khan was most likely a Sikh, she said so while she was aboard Botany Bay. As to whether you have to be a Jatt to be a Sikh? I dunno. Could use some research. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC) :::Please see the earlier discussions on this page, which showed that McGivers was engaging in pure speculation as to Khan being Sikh. As above, a Sikh is a religious affiliation that cannot be determined by appearance alone, and anyone can be one if they so choose. And Khan did not have any of the traditional 20th Century visual cues for potentially being a Sikh (long hair, beard, dagger, turban, etc.) Although it seems unnecessary to have examined this much further since "Jatt" wasn't mentioned by anyone, just so you know it is not necessary to be a Jatt (or Jat, depending on your preference) to be a Sikh, and not all Jatts are Sikhs (many are Hindu and Muslim, for example). But you are welcome to look into it further if you think that there is a valid resource that states that Khan was a Jatt. Aholland 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Random Curiosity So this has bothered me for some time. How on earth did Khan get that ST Movie-era necklace to wear? It is most certainly not from the original series. That's always bothered me... --Beyerku 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC) :Well, there has not been any canon explanation, but if I remember correctly, Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars books revealed that the necklace belonged to Marla McGivers – in fact, I think it was given to her by Chekov. --From Andoria with Love 09:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::For all we know, it was an antique from some uniform style we've never seen before... -- Captain M.K.B. 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC) :::I think the implication in TWOK -- I don't know if it was the writers' implication or the director's -- was that the necklace was McGivers' or came from McGivers. Certainly, Khan had no love for Starfleet and it is difficult to imagine any other reason why he'd wear that thing. On the other hand, it's not inconceivable that it was made part of the costume in order to draw attention to Ricardo Montalban's chest. ::::Well, more like it was there to draw attention -away- from the conspicuous boundary between Khan's smooth, muscular chest and his wrinkled old neck... -- 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :::::Not to beat a dead horse, but I suppose my reason for bringing it up is that the necklace is a ST movie-era insignia, not TOS era. McGivers could have given it to him - if she had a movie-style uniform.--Beyerku 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ::::::The Starfleet insignia around Khan's neck in Wrath of Khan is a broken uniform buckle taken from a slain crew member aboard the USS Reliant. It is known as the "Buckle Necklace" according to the Star Trek: The Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton. (updated on Khan's bio page in background section) -- 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) :::::::I'm fairly certain he's wearing it when Chekov and Terrell beam down to Ceti Alpha "V" at the beginning of TWOK, *before* Khan and company beam aboard the Reliant. -- 03:17, November 19, 2009 (UTC) Khan and the "secret code" I don't know about the interpretations in this paragraph: :"Unable to decipher Spock's sophisticated code language, Khan expected Enterprise would take two days to effect basic repairs. Upon the discovery of his prey – underway at full impulse power, and bound for the obscuring clouds of the Mutara Nebula – Khan hesitated at Joachim's advice, and started to abandon pursuit. With a ship of his own, Genesis at his disposal, and Kirk marooned in a rock, he could afford to let the Enterprise run away." The "sophisticated code language" line is pure comedy gold. I love it. But apart from the fact that it's hard to imagine Kirk and Spock being so happy about such a retarded code, and the fact that apparently the others on the planet didn't get it, what real evidence is there that Khan didn't understand it? His reaction "not as wounded as we were led to believe" - doesn't truly imply that Khan was suckered. He didn't seem -that- surprised, you know? It seems as likely Khan could have suspected the truth or simply seen straight through the code - it doesn't make a lot of difference since Reliant had not yet caught up to Enterprise again. And as for hesitation at the nebula - Khan never "started to abandon pursuit". He hesitated. And Kirk wouldn't have -stayed- marooned if the Enterprise got away, Enterprise would have gotten away from the comm interference and called in some reinforcements. I don't think Khan would've let the Enterprise escape: Kirk's taunt just served to piss him off, making him rush in carelessly. -- 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :The Anonymous User makes some excellent points, and I've revised that section accordingly. As far as Khan being fooled (or not), I think "Not so wounded as we were led to beleive" can be taken fairly literally - I don't recall Khan habitually speaking with irony. --Aurelius Kirk 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Future's End No mention of the Voyager episode ? Its the ONLY episode of Star Trek to take place during Khan's reign. That HAS to bare a significance strong enough for at least a mention. Its one thing to ignore the episode, at least in regards to canon (which I do, although I enjoy it immensely), but this site operates on the basis of canon uber-alles. I respect it for that. So... there should be SOME mention of the 1996 Earth seen in that episode. I refrain from editing the page, as it was a featured article, which was precisely why I read the Khan page at all... so... at least you can rest assured that featuring pages increases viewership. ;) Yeah there was no Mention of Khan or the Eugenics wars in this episode. In fact this episode showed a 1996 that was roughly what the real world 1996 was. for the past nearly 20 years i have always thought this was a bit odd that the real world 1990s was not being the future that the people in the 1960s thought it was going to be. The real world did have Eugenics wars but in our world they were not clumped together in any kind of group. they were some Genocides in Africa (Rawanda) and also Asia (Cambodia) as well as Europe (Yugoslavia) which was just what was said about the Eugenics wars that they happened on these countinents. but in real life they were not led by Khan. but the point is the Futures end episode does not really try to portray a world like the earlier episode "space seed" would have indicated. Promethius20 (talk) 06:37, April 17, 2015 (UTC) Enterprise Augments Someone needs to take that Enterprise "augment" junk out of this article. We don't know that Khan is one, even if Enterprise tried to attach the term to the Eugenics Wars. I don't believe Archer & Co. ever referred to Khan as one. 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC) :No... but Malik did. The "junk" stays. --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Protected This page has been protected due to recent vandalism from an apparent terrorist... or so Fox News would have us believe. --From Andoria with Love 20:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC) The Ultimate Paradox I wonder if this could make it in somehow as a background note either to this article or an article about time travel or perhaps alternate timelines. Although perhaps it's pure conjecture. But just imagine this as the ULTIMATE paradox: :Kirk and crew go back in time to 1986 in but instead of finding the whales they land the Bird of Prey in Asia and find Khan Noonian Singh. At this point, five years before Khan's rise to power, he's around 27 or 28 years old. Kirk KILLS Khan as a young man. Thus history is changed. Khan dies in 1986, does not rise to power in 1992 and does not escape on the Bounty Bay in 1996. Kirk and crew do NOT encounter him in and he does not get exiled to Ceti Alpha V and does not seek revenge in 2286. Spock does not die, the entire plot of Star Trek III is avoided, and Star Trek IV never happens. Thus Kirk could not go back in time to kill Khan in the first place. Imagine that! It gives me a headache. -FleetCaptain 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ::I don't think this would be appropriate for a background note. If this was allowed, then almost any speculation could be allowed, and then MA would just be pages of speculation instead of articles.--31dot 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC) My feeling as well. I'm also very curious also if that idea has ever appeared in a comic book or novel. Might go write such a novel myself... -FleetCaptain 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :::Yes, this is nothing but idle speculation. You could post it on the trekbbs or a similar site but it has absolutely no relevance here on MA, neither on the article page, nor its talk page. --Jörg 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I think that's being a bit harsh saying it has no relevance here. And my original question stands if this has ever been mentioned in a novel or comic book. Maybe not about the paradox, but my next question would be whether or not a b-ground note in might be in order. Thats a discussion for over at that article, though. -FleetCaptain 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Remember when Scotty and McCoy gave the formula for transparent aluminum to that guy in IV, and then cavalierly joked, "Well how do we know that he didn't invent the stuff?" The ultimate paradox would be if Khan, who described himself as 'an engineer of sorts' in his time, had been the creator of transparent aluminum in the original timeline. Deprived of his big breakthrough and the comfortable middle class lifestyle it would have brought him, he grows bitter and turns to a life of politics and powermongering. 04:26, December 26, 2012 (UTC) you know FleetCaptain iv been thing about this concept of Alternate Realities. Perhaps Jim Kirk and Katherine Janeway both visited alternate realities. they both went back to alternate 1986 and 1996. When these two captains visited the 1980s and 1990s there was no indication of these being futures like the 1960s sugested about Khan and is war destroyed versions of the Earth from his war mongering. I mean think about it in the Brand New star trek movie series we got a alternate reality in the 23rd century showing a slightly different version of Jim Kirk. Its possible that becasue there's already those two realities that possibly these 23rd and 24th century captains could also have gone back to alternate version of the real world and only being alternate from the actual world is becasue Kirk and warp drive and it being star trek with Klingons and Romulans and what not. what do you think about this idea that these two captains going back in time just visted alternate realities? the thing is when the people changed things in these alternate realities it some how effected the future of them and then became star trek futures centuries later, so how is it possible that in alternate realities from the real world we them wind up with this some how effecting a star trek like world and a star trek like world cant possibly be the real worlds future anyways? Promethius20 (talk) 07:34, April 17, 2015 (UTC) Khan's Age With "his age being correct" as Spock said in can we pin down Khan as being born in the 1960s? tells us that augments are born just like everyone else and have to grow up the normal way. Therefore, if Khan was say 33 in 1996 (Ricardo Montalban was 46 when the episode was made), that would have him being born in 1963. Perhaps we can flush that out a bit; I for one find it intersting since genetic engineering in the 1960s was nowhere CLOSE to the abilities neccesary to create an augment. The only other way to explain Khan's age would be that he "created" later on, in the 80s or 90s, and given some kind of accelerated growth. There already exists a note on the 1960s page; I'm wondering if it can be expanded and tied to canon. -FleetCaptain 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :One thing to remember is that Arik Soong was fairly limited in his resources, even dependent on the Orions IIRC. It is possible that the 20th century born augments had an advantage of some sort of technologically accelerated growth, "coming out of the tube" as an adult, while Dr. Soong had to go the old fashioned way due to both restrictions in resources and technology banned along with the rest of the Eugenics work. Granted, this is speculation, but given that TOS mostly depicted 1960s as having a similar level of technology to the real 1960s, I think it is likely. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Genetic engineering in the 24th century I'm a bit perplex about this paragraph: :Khan and his augment brethren were considered so dangerous that even four centuries later, genetic engineering was banned throughout the United Federation of Planets in order to avoid creating another tyrant like Khan. A black market in the genetic manipulation of children with limited abilities continued, however, resulting in the enhancement of humans like Dr. Julian Bashir. ( ) Despite existing bans (see the discussion here), genetic engineering was openly pursued by Federation in the 24th century at the Darwin Genetic Research Station. ( ) I think the text should be somewhat rephrased. Triggerator 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC) :What's wrong with it? It's all canon, and reads well.– Cleanse 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Sure, it's canon, but canon sources clash a bit here (despite the ban, some genetic engineering research was going on, not only in the black market). To me, the text above seems to provide an incomplete description of the situation. Triggerator 10:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC) ::A background note was added at Darwin Genetic Research Station on this very topic. -FleetCaptain 12:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Hi, certainly the issue is well addressed in other pages in MA as you point out, but still the text in Khan's page (a FA) seems not ideal. But it looks it's just my problem so I'll drop it :) Triggerator 13:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Removed Speculation :If it had not been for Khan's actions, Kirk and the crew would have been in no position to do anything, and Earth would have lost suitability for Human life, if not destroyed entirely Someone removed the above speculation - I'm putting it here for archival purposes. — Morder 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::This is kind of already covered anyway in the last background note that speaks of how ST:II led to III which led to IV which led to Kirk and company going back in time to save the whales. -FC 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::Yeah, and honestly, I'm not sure that entire paragraph belongs. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::::I don't think that it belongs. Statements like that could be made about a lot of aspects of Trek.--31dot 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::Exactly. The entire paragraph putting the rescue of Earth from the Whale Probe in Khan's legacy is an extreme use of the word. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC) ::::A little late, but I removed the paragraph to here. :::::Ironically, Khan's actions in 2285 saved countless lives on Earth. In the wake of his reprieve from Ceti Alpha V, Admiral James T. Kirk and his crew were in transit to Earth from Vulcan in 2286. Unaffected by the Whale Probe that crippled local Starfleet vessels and besieged Earth, they were able to resolve the crisis, and saved the planet from environmental devastation. ( ) :::: --31dot 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Too speculative for the main article I admit, but I've always loved that irony, which makes the answer to Saavik asking David "How many have died for your impatience?", "6, maybe 7 billion less than would have if I'd been more patient" - I kind of wish one of the bad guy genetic engineers in TNG had flat-out said that to Picard.--Ten-pint 20:03, December 4, 2009 (UTC) product of a secret genetic engeneering program? Was it ever mentioned on-screen that the program was secret? I've recently watched both space seed and TWOK pretty attentively, and I don't remember this ever been stated. Admitedly, there has been no knowledge of such experiments in the real 20th century so it's a tempting assumption, but then again, neither has their or course been any mention of the 1990s eugenics war itself, so... - Capricorn 19:11, December 18, 2009 (UTC) :I don't see it in their transcripts or ENT's Augments arc either, only that embroys were retained after the Wars and the Botany Bay launch were kept secret, but not the breeding program. It is odd that it's not mentioned in Voyage Home or Future's End. Greg Cox's books on the Eugenics Wars explains that oddity by having the program (and virtually the Wars themselves at the time) cleverly secret, but those are Apocrypha. Setacourse 20:40, December 23, 2009 (UTC) Marla was his wife....? Surely the infobox entry for "Spouse(s)" should read Marla McGivers? best, Sunil060902 14:26, December 23, 2009 (UTC) :There's a long in-progress discussion at Talk:Ceti eel#Speculation. Setacourse 14:40, December 23, 2009 (UTC) ::Another another discussion at Talk:Marla McGivers#Speculation. -- sulfur 14:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC) Replaced opening quote I replaced the opening quote, "Have you ever read Milton, Captain?" with "On Earth...200 years ago...I was a prince. With power over millions!", as I thought that the old one wasn't very illustrative of Khan's character. -Angry Future Romulan 17:22, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Eugenic Wars date RetCon ?? I find it strange it isn't even mentioned, but don't later Star Trek works suggest the Eugenic Wars being pushed further into the future (like the late 21st century)? Sure it's not easy to reconcile, but maybe you're, whenever they mention the 1990s or 1996 in SpaceSeed and WrathOfKhan, supposed to "imagine" they say a later date instead? (Similar to the Klingon ridges thing...) 21:24, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :To when? I don't know of anything that had actually established a different date, and we aren't supposed to "imagine" the Klingon ridges either. The lack of them in TOS has been explained and been reconfirmed as canon in "Enterprise." --OuroborosCobra talk 02:19, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :: suggests the wars took place later. --Defiant 07:59, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Which Ronald D. Moore has said was a personal error on his part and not an attempt to retcon anything. While it did make it into canon, there are certainly explanations for it within canon too. 31dot 09:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yeah, those "explanations" being speculative. --Defiant 11:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm not saying they are anything but- only that it is not a retcon.31dot 11:31, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::The augment embryos and the genetic engineering were linked to the 20th century Earth in as late as so definitely no retcons. --Pseudohuman 06:21, September 30, 2010 (UTC) 15 or 18 years Removed this from three different articles, where it was randomly placed near some mention of Khan: :Khan was clearly mistaken when he said that he and his people had been marooned on Ceti Alpha V for fifteen years, because we've established that it was eighteen years. I'm not even sure whether this really is the case - but if it is, and needs to be mentioned, it should be in a background note where it belongs, and not everywhere. -- Cid Highwind 11:26, November 26, 2010 (UTC) Violation of Prime Directive? I have never read anywhere about this, and I don't think it has been bought up before, but was Kirk's decision to make Khan the ruler of Ceti Alpha V a violation of the prime directive? By sending him to the planet, he disrupted the order of the planet. Am I just being stupid here?, or is this actually possible..? :Kirk didn't make Khan the ruler of Ceti Alpha V, Kirk marooned Khan and his followers on Ceti Alpha V.--TyphussJediVader 16:25, May 23, 2012 (UTC) ::The PD only applies to societies- there was no native society or species there. 31dot 21:28, May 23, 2012 (UTC) :::Although, Kirk's command decision to actually leave Khan on the Ceti Alpha V system after he tried to commandeer the entire ship and kill him was pretty crazy. I imagine it was among the greatest mistakes of his career (far more of a court martial offense than going back to the Genesis planet). If we actually started discussing why Khan was sent to the Ceti Alpha system, and not the Starbase 12 brig... that opens a lot of plot holes. These intricacies are what make TWOK and Space Seed much more interesting than the action scenes. Fara001 (talk) 07:01, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Those are interesting thoughts, but such discussion should not take place here, as article talk pages are for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 10:22, October 23, 2012 (UTC) Kahn Can anybody explain why I often see the name written as Kahn? Hutchy01 (talk) 20:33, May 25, 2014 (UTC) :Because people can't spell? -- sulfur (talk) 21:48, May 25, 2014 (UTC) Date contradiction In 1996,... Khan and his people remained in suspended animation for Botany Bay's (nearly) two hundred year sublight journey. The USS Enterprise discovered the Botany Bay in the Mutara sector in 2267. If he was placed in stasis in the late 1990s, and remained so for nearly 200 years, then he should have been revived in 2167. 1996 - 2267 would be nearly 300 years. I understand the ambiguity, but maybe we should change the wording?-- 03:13, December 9, 2014 (UTC) :Done. - Mitchz95 (talk) 17:07, December 9, 2014 (UTC) The quote Maybe we should replace the quote with something Khan actually said in the canon movies --Phoeniiiix (talk) 12:10, August 26, 2016 (UTC) :It is from a canon movie. and it's the original Spock saying it, so it's relevant. -- sulfur (talk) 12:20, August 26, 2016 (UTC) Removed From the intro section, right after his name, I've removed this small bit: :(Punjabi: ਖਾਨ ਨੂਨਿਏਨ ਸਿੰਘ) That's not attested to in canon. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:54, July 2, 2018 (UTC)